Hate Speech Public Consultation

Do you think it's acceptable for https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-40787319.html this article to be published?

How can you claim this isn't hate speech?

The constant mentioning that it is men who are at fault for all of societies ills and that men are the reason for all bad things. Not singular men, all men.

I'm not offended by the article. I disagree with it completely, but thats as far as my opinion goes with it. I wouldn't want any censorship of it.

I just wonder if you and people like you will hold yourselves to the same standards.

For the fans of bringing in stringent hate speech laws, an overwhelmingly negative article about the entirety of any other group would be deemed as hate speech.

I know enough from your posts to form an opinion of you. So with all due respect, I will continue to use whatever language I choose.

I can see that you would think I was offended by the article. You probably garnered that from when I explicitly stated that "I am not offended by the article".

My question was asking someone (like you) who is in favour of more stringent hate speech laws being introduced if they believed that this article which basically states that men are at fault for all of societies woes would be considered hate speech under laws they want brought in.

I do not consider it hate speech.

I haven't attacked you Robbie. Not at all.

I don't think any of it should be covered by hate speech legislation.

I was asking another poster if they believed it should because of the overall tone of the article being overtly negative towards all men; something which people like you would call hate speech if it was directed against another group of people.

Again Robbie, I refer you to the article in its entirety. It's overall tone. The fact that it explicitly says it is the fault of ALL men.

The whole lot of it.

Any quote can be taken out of context so instead of doing that, I asked the poster to judge whether the article IN ITS ENTIRETY would be hate speech in their opinion, seeing as how they are advocates for more robust hate speech laws.

An article which attributes blame for a litany of societal ills on a specific group for the actions of a minority within that group would surely run foul of their interpretation of hate speech.

You've already stated that you have read it and you didn't think it qualifies as hate speech. Me giving a quote which could be taken out of context is not what I wanted an opinion on. I wanted someone to read the article in full and let me know if it would fall under hate speech by their standards.

I didn't and won't provide any singular quote or even two or three quotes which I think someone could be construe as hate speech as it would not be a fair indication of the piece as a whole and not what I wanted to know.

And my point wasn't to point out something offensive. I've already said I didn't find it offensive. I wanted to know if people like you (not you specifically) would realise the hypocrisy in screaming hate speech for the vilification of a certain group in one instance, but look the other way when it doesn't suit.

Yes Robbie. People like you, but not you specifically.

I have dealt with your posts.

You don't think this article is hate speech although it vilified all men for a lot of society and women's problems.

If this article was an overtly negative article about immigrants and how each one of them was to blame for the actions of a few, I am 100% sure that you and people like you would claim it as hate speech.

I've already said I don't think it's hard speech.

Keep up.

A fair summation would be I asked a person whose views normally align with you, if an article which unfairly vilified a group of people would be considered hate speech to them.

I don't believe it's hate speech but that poster might considering their view on hate speech which is why I asked them specifically.

I could pick out certain quotes but a fairer way of judging an article would be in its entirety.

That would be a fair summation.

You are honestly relentless in your frankly bizarre campaign to attribute outrage to my feelings about this article.

I've stated on numerous occassions, to you, today, that I am not outraged.

I'm not outraged for myself, nor on behalf of others.

I have turned a blind eye to cheap, vulgar sexism — it is all men

thats the title of the **** thing

It is all men. Me. You. Every other man in our culture. Every single one of us.

That attributes blame to every single man based on the actions of a few.